Category: Other Opposing Worldview

A Few Words On Dispensationalism & A Book List

 

“[i]f Higher Criticism is the error of the Bible-disbeliever, “Dispensationalism “, as it is called, is the error of many a Bible-believer.”

O. T. Allis
Professor Princeton/Westminster
Semitic Philology

The stew that was Dispensationalism not only arose from the odd teachings of Edward Irving and John Nelson Darby as systematized by Scofield, Chafer, Ryrie, Pentecost, and others, it also folded into itself revivalism, common sense realism, Keswick and Holiness teaching, Pentecostalism, with additional contributions from prominent Lutherans (Seiss), Reformed (Chafer, D. G. Barnhouse), many Baptists (Vance Havner, John MacArthur, Jerry Falwell, W. A. Criswell, etc.), and of course the Brethren movement from which it arose. These various strains often jostled with one another for supremacy but in the end they all adopted one variant strain or another of Dispensationalism. Indeed, more than a few have argued that R2K is merely another variant of Dispensationalism and has been skewered by being called “Reformed Dispensationalism.” R2K certainly bears the mark of retreatism that was characteristic of Dispensationalism. R2K, also, like Dispensationalism divided the world into “worldly” (R2K’s common) and Spiritual arenas. Finally, R2K, like all Dispensational models emphasized covenantal discontinuity as opposed to covenantal continuity.

What few people know is that D. L. Moody used Dispensationalism as a tool to reunite a fractured nation after the War of Northern Aggression. Moody, who was hardly one to be overly concerned with theological systematization, used Dispensationalism as a tool for sectional reconciliation arguing that as Jesus was coming back at any moment previous disagreements between warring Christians should be put aside and the business of saving souls should unite us all. In such a way sectional recriminations were set aside for the greater work of soul saving.

In many respects then Dispensationalism has been the religious glue that kept America together since Reconstruction ended. It also served as the means by which we have been enslaved by Israel. Dispensationalism so emphasized the ongoing integrity and necessity of Israel that all of World History was changed because of Dispensationalism’s errant premise that Israel remained God’s earthly chosen people and that all Christians were duty bound to bless Israel upon pain of divine retribution.

A Few books that will forever cure you of Dispensationalism;

John Gerstner – Wrongly Dividing the Truth
O. T. Allis – OT Prophecy & The Church
Gentry/Bahnsen – House Divided: The break up of Dispensational Theology
Hummel – The Rise & Fall of Dispensationalism
Steven Sizer – Zion’s Christian Soldiers: The Bible, Israel and the Church
Steven Sizer – Christian Zionism
O. Palmer Robertson’s – “The Israel of God”
Allison Weir — Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel
Giles Corey – The Sword of Christ____ 

Charles Ryrie in his 1965 book seeking to bring Dispensationalism up to date wrote that the main distinctives of Dispensationalism were

1.) The distinction between Israel and the Church
2.) Literal and plain hermeneutic

3.) Overall point of history was to glorify God

Ryrie’s first essential fails to take into account that OT Israel was the Church in its cocoon stage. Ryrie failed to understand that God is eschatologically done with Israel as a nation-State. Modern Israel is irrelevant to God’s ongoing macro plan of redemption or eschatology.

Ryries second point requires asking the question, “By what standard.” All Protestants who believe in the inerrant and inspired and infallible word of God believe that Scripture should be read via a literal and plain hermeneutic. However, reading the Scripture via a literal and plain hermeneutic looks very different when somebody sane does it as compared when a Dispensational comic book theologian does it.

Everyone agrees w/ #3… we just don’t agree with how the Dispie thinks history is going to glorify God.

___

It’s startling how big a part eschatology and teleology plays into one’s theology. Indeed, I don’t think it would be too much to say that one’s eschatology is the engine that drives all other sub areas of systematic theology. Tell me a man’s eschatology and I’ll tell you his soteriology, ecclesiology, anthropology, etc.

I’m reading Hummel’s “The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism” now and Hummel makes the point that the reason that what he calls “new premillennialism” was able to take hold in the states is because people’s attitudes about the future were altered by the War of Northern Aggression and the desire for reconciling white people North and South. The new eschatology allowed the previous postmills to create a dualism that allowed them to be optimistic about the church while being agnostic about the world. If agnostic about the world there would be no reason to not embrace Yankee versions of reconstruction. The price that had to be paid for this “reconciling theology” though was the surrendering of the postmil eschatology that had previously been held widely in the Reformed Church in America. If Jesus was coming back at any minute then there was no need to see all of life needing to conform to God’s revealed law Word. The job at hand was to get souls saved. The job at hand was not to shine the brass on a sinking ship (the world).

Also, what is interesting here is that Plymouth Brethren theology (Darby) became owned by Baptists, Lutherans, and Presbyterians alike as filtered through their particular flavor. So the Plymouth Brethren eschatology owned the day without the Plymouth Brethren denomination reaching any kind of ascendency. Still, the AnaBaptist flavor of the Darby Plymouth Brethren doctrine leavened the whole denominational landscape in America resulting in Prophecy conferences, Bible Colleges peppering the landscape, and the rise of the Missions Movement.

I keep thinking as I read this … “Ideas have consequences.”

Also, I am beginning to understand some of the leavening effect that remains inasmuch as there is a good amount of Plymouth Brethren hermeneutic that remains in R2K

A Few Words About Dispensationalism’s Origin & Influence

The stew that was Dispensationalism not only arose from the odd teachings of Edward Irving and John Nelson Darby as systematized by Scofield, Chafer, Ryrie, Pentecost, and others, it also folded into itself revivalism, common sense realism, Keswick and Holiness teaching, and Pentecostalism. Dispensationalism also found contributions from prominent Lutherans (Seiss), Reformed (Chafer, D. G. Barnhouse), many Baptists (Vance Havner), and of course the Brethren movement from which it arose. These various strains often jostled with one another but in the end they all adopted one variant strain or another of Dispensationalism. Indeed, even yet today the theology of Dispensationalism finds influences in the Reformed world as more than a few have argued that R2K is merely another variant of Dispensationalism. R2K certainly bears the mark of retreatism that was characteristic of Dispensationalism, as well as a Gnostic dividing the world into “worldly” (R2K’s common) and Spiritual.

What few people know is that D. L. Moody used Dispensationalism as a tool to reunite a fractured nation after the War of Northern Aggression. Moody, who was hardly one to be overly concerned with theological systematization, used Dispensationalism as a tool for sectional reconciliation arguing that has Jesus was coming back at any moment previous disagreements between warring Christians should be put aside and the business of saving souls should unite us all.

In many respects then Dispensationalism has been the religious glue that kept America together since Reconstruction ended. It also served as one of the means by which we have been enslaved by Israel. Dispensationalism so emphasized the ongoing integrity and necessity of Israel that all of World History was changed because of Dispensationalism’s errant premise that Israel remained God’s earthly chosen people and that all Christians were duty bound to bless Israel upon pain of divine retribution.

Random Observations On Dispensationalism & A Reading List For Dispies

All of this in the context of reading Daniel G. Hummel’s “The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism; How The Evangelical Battle Over The End Times Shaped A Nation.”

In 1957 A. W. Tozer warned that;

“A widespread revival of the kind of Christianity we know today in America might prove to be a moral tragedy from which we would not recover in one hundred years.”

He was referring to Dispensationalism.

____

In 1967 there was an updated version of the C. I. Scofield Dispie Bible released. One of its most significant updates was a note on Genesis 12:1-4 where the Holocaust (TM) was introduced into the notes. The new note clarified that God’s promise to Abraham- “I will curse those who curse you” — was;

“A warning literally fulfilled in the history of Israel’s persecutions. It has invariably literally fulfilled in the history of Israel’s persecutions. It has invariably fared ill with the people who have persecuted the Bagel – well with those who have protected him. For a people who commit the sin of antisemitism brings inevitable judgment.”

Now, the kicker here, that is not in the notes, is that the Bagels and Christian Zionists were the ones who got to define what antisemitism meant.

Look, when I see this stuff, it only convinces me that as a Christian I am playing on team stupid.

____

Charles Ryrie in his 1965 book he authored sought to bring Dispensationalism up to date. Ryrie wrote that the main distinctives of Dispensationalism were;

1.) The distinction between Israel and the Church

2.) Literal and plain hermeneutic
3.) Overall point of history was to glorify God

Ryrie’s first essential fails to take into account that OT Israel was the Church in its cocoon stage. The distinction between Israel and the Church was always the distinction between caterpillars and butterflies. Ryrie’s Dispensationalism always insisted (and still insists) that God, after the death, resurrection, ascension, and session of the Lord Christ, still has a plan for Israel that is tied to God’s eschatological and redemptive clock.

Ryrie failed to understand that God is eschatologically and redemptively done with Israel as a nation-State. Modern Israel is irrelevant to God’s ongoing macro plan of redemption or eschatology. And “No,” Romans 11 does not prove me wrong.

Ryries second point requires asking the question, “By what standard.” All Protestants who believe in the inerrant, inspired and infallible word of God believe that Scripture should be read via a literal and plain hermeneutic. However, reading the Scripture via a literal and plain hermeneutic looks very different when somebody sane does it as compared when a Dispensational comic book theologian does it. For example, when there is Sensus Plenior in the text to read the text that way is to read it according to its literal and plain hermeneutic. For example, when the text requires a archetype and type reading to read it in just such a way is to read the text according to a plain and literal hermeneutic. For example, to make a proper distinction between allegory and parable and then to read those aright means a plain and literal hermeneutic is being used. The point is, is that Dispensationalism doesn’t get to claim that it alone is reading the Scripture according to its original intent while everyone else is limping along trying to keep up with the Comic Book interpreters. When Dispies slice and dice the Scriptures into seven compartmentalized epochs, when Baptists refuse to see the continuity of Scripture so as to not bring covenant children to the Baptismal font, when Pentecostals insist that speaking in tongues is required for believers, they are all not reading the Scripture according to its plain and literal meaning. However, Dispensationalists exceed all in this category.

Everyone agrees with Ryrie’s #3… we just don’t agree with how the Dispie thinks history is going to glorify God. For example, the Dispie thinks that history will glorify God with doom and despair being the necessary keynotes before Christ return, whereas Biblical eschatology theology understands that the King is going to return to a world where the Great Commission has been fulfilled.

___

A reading list to cure what ails the Dispensationalist;

1.) John Gerstner – Wrongly Dividing the Truth
2.) O. T. Allis – OT Prophecy & The Church
3.) Gentry/Bahnsen – House Divided: The break up of Dispensational Theology
4.) Daniel G. Hummel – The Rise & Fall of Dispensationalism
5.) Steven Sizer – Zion’s Christian Soldiers: The Bible, Israel and the Church
6.) Steven Sizer – Christian Zionism
7.) O. Palmer Robertson’s “The Israel of God”
8.) Allison Weir — Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel

___

“The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, while the other is to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved.”

Lewis Sperry Chafer
Systematic Theology – p. 448

Dispensationalism is NOT Christianity. This sets the Abrahamic covenant on its head and works to the end of keeping the Bagels as God’s chosen (earthly) people. That is total trash thinking and largely explains where we are today with our problems with the Bagels.

But how different is this from Doug Wilson’s advocacy of “The Covenant With Hagar” crapola?

Rome & Eastern Orthodoxy Remain Christless

“For Presbyterians of all others to discount the perpetual danger from Romanism is thoroughly thoughtless and rash. We believe that the Christianity left by the apostles to the primitive church was essentially what we now call Presbyterian and Protestant. Prelacy and popery speedily began to work in the bosom of that community and steadily wrought its corruption and almost its total extirpation. Why should not the same cause tend to work the same result again? Are we truer or wiser Presbyterians than those trained by the apostles? Have the enemies of truth become less skillful and dangerous by gaining the experience of centuries? The popish system of ritual and doctrine was a gradual growth, which, modifying true Christianity, first perverted and then extinguished it. Its destructive power has resulted from this: that it has not been the invention of any one cunning and hostile mind, but a gradual growth, modified by hundreds or thousands of its cultivators, who were the most acute, learned, selfish, and anti-Christian spirits of their generations, perpetually retouched and adapted to every weakness and every attribute of depraved human nature, until it became the most skillful and pernicious system of error which the world has ever known. As it has adjusted itself to every superstition, every sense of guilt, every foible and craving of the depraved human heart, so it has travestied with consummate skill every active principle of the Gospel. It is doubtless the ne plus ultra of religious delusion, the final and highest result of perverted human faculty guided by the sagacity of the great enemy.”

Robert L Dabney
The attractions of Popery

Could it be that one reason people are moving to Rome and EO is because what they are envisioned as doing is pursuing a continuity with a storied past? Could the move away from Protestantism be due to the fact that such a move is the new counter-culture move? Protestantism is seen as irrelevant because it represents all that is shallow, disposable, and unworthy about our current moment.

People want gravitas again and the smells and bells of Rome and EO give them that.

Now, of course, we few Protestants who never took up the worship as a bad rock concert or the sermons as 10 minute self help talks or who never viewed the congregation as a Brothel from which ambitious ministers might have their pick have always known Rome and EO is all promise with no fulfillment and so we know there will be no fulfillment for those traipsing to Rome and EO.

But, in our hearts of hearts we understand that the flight to Rome or EO by the hoi polloi is likely not going to be any worse for their souls and lives then the rancid miasma they are fleeing from. Despite that being so we have a need to be responsible and warn people off of Rome and EO as being dangers to their souls. This needs to be said repeatedly as we now have platformed Protestants out there (Joel Webbon comes to mind) who are suggesting that Rome is a better poison than the poison of the Cultural Marxists. Poison is poison and we cannot make peace with any poison that will kill us dead.

I have no doubt that many in the confederation of Rome or EO share values with biblical Christians that many in the Evangelical/Reformed/R2K world do not share given how degenerate the Evangelical/Reformed/R2K world has become but those shared values do not translate into a shared faith, religion, or God.

Beware Rome … Beware EO.

An Apologetic Against Favoring Relics As Posited By A Roman Catholic

St. John Lateran is the Cathedral of the Popes. The “church” is a treasure house of relics where you will allegedly find;

1.) The heads of St. Peter and Paul
2.) The ark of the covenant
3.) The tablets of Moses
4.) The rod of Aaron
5.) An urn of Manna
6.) The Virgin’s tunic
7.) Five loaves and two fishes from the feeding of the 5K
8.) The dinner table from the Lord’s supper

And in the Pope’s chapel there resides;

1.) Foreskin and umbilical cord of Jesus.

Stephen O’Shea
The Perfect Heresy: The Revolutionary Life and Death of the Medieval Cathars

Bret observes,

Do you realize how credulous one has to be to be Roman Catholic?

It should be further observed that this idea of the necessity for relics as contributive to salvation in the Roman Catholic system continues today seeing , every Catholic church is required to have at least one relic, typically placed within the main altar.

Relics thus, are part and parcel of the Roman Catholic salvation system.  To this day in the Roman Catholic process of salvation visiting a relic can grant a plenary indulgence, which may reduce or eliminate time spent in purgatory, thus hastening the Roman Catholic’s longed for salvation.

Jon Sheldon (Roman Catholic) defending relics replies,

“St John Lateran indeed has relics, as do churches all over the world. (Though I am not familiar with exactly which relics they have.) There is nothing unbelievable about relics unless you have an anti supernatural bias. This is exactly how I would argue against an atheist, by the way.

Relics are long attested to both scripturally and historically. The dead man who fell into Elisha’s tomb and was made alive and Paul’s handkerchief are two examples.

The early church kept and distributed relics.

If this makes us cringe today, or view these people as primitive, it is merely our post-enlightenment sensitivities.

It is also fundamentally gnostic. ‘Old bones and wood can’t possibly transmit power, that’s just superstition. God only transmits grace directly and invisibly.’”

Bret responds,

1.) Your examples from the Scripture on relics suffers from the fact that those examples are FROM SCRIPTURE. All the other relics scattered all over the world were not sanctioned by the testimony of Scripture. Further we are not told from Scripture that those articles mentioned in Scripture should continue to be seen as transmitting power. This is yet another example of Rome reading into Scripture.

2.) There are scads of problems with relics since the Scripture teaches us to place our trust in Christ alone and not power emanating relics. The Heidelberg Catechism, drawing from Scripture, teaches that

Q. Why is the Son of God called Jesus, that is, Saviour?

A. Because he saves us from all our sins,1 and because salvation is not to be sought or found in anyone else.2

1 Mt 1:21; Heb 7:25.
2 Is 43:11; Jn 15:4, 5; Acts 4:11, 12; 1 Tim 2:5.

30. Q. Do those who seek their salvation or well-being in saints, in themselves, or anywhere else (RELICS), also believe in the only Saviour Jesus?

A. No. Though they boast of him in words, they in fact deny the only Saviour Jesus.1 For one of two things must be true: either Jesus is not a complete Saviour, or those who by true faith accept this Saviour must find in him all that is necessary for their salvation.2

1 1 Cor 1:12, 13; Gal 5:4.
2 Col 1:19, 20; 2:10; 1 Jn 1:7.

3.) That the early church was in error is not a surprise to anyone given the problems the earliest churches had (Corinth, Galatia, Colossae, etc.). The early church does NOT get pride of place simply because it was the early church.

4.) A lack of belief on the part of Christians regarding the nonsense of relics does not mean a lack of belief in the supernatural. It merely means a lack of belief in the supernatural when it comes to the Roman Catholic church using this kind of manipulation to keep people in spiritual bondage and from trusting in Christ alone for salvation.

5.) I do not deny that the means of grace that God ordains for salvation are means of grace. In point of fact I insist that Rome cheapens the means of grace by introducing all these other means of grace that you are defending. If everything is a means of grace nothing is a means of grace. God explicitly gave us two means of grace and the foreskin of Jesus and the umbilical cord from Jesus are not among them.

Oh … and by the way … this is the way I argue against credulous Roman Catholics.